Martin,
The following question then comes to mind: what level of schema support will
there be in the outside world when the spec is released, or shortly thereafter?
And also: will there be environments that will never support schemas?
Jean-Jacques.
Martin Gudgin wrote:
> My opinion and my opinion only...
>
> If schema descriptions of XMLP messages are available then no specific
> encoding is necessary. A default encoding is useful for environments that do
> not have schema support for whatever reason. In these cases the default
> encoding acts like an implicit schema. Personally I think the SOAP encoding
> stuff in Section 5 of the spec is pretty reasonable apart from the array
> stuff.
>
> Gudge
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jean-Jacques Moreau" <moreau@crf.canon.fr>
> To: "Frank DeRose" <fderose@home.com>
> Cc: <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
> Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2001 3:51 PM
> Subject: Re: encodingStyle
>
> > Frank DeRose wrote:
> >
> > > [...]
> > > Should the XMLP WG define a default
> > > encodingStyle? Should it simply adopt the one from the SOAP spec?
> > > Should this problem be turned over to some other W3C WG,
> > > like the XML Schema WG?
> > > [...]
> >
> > Anyone from the XML Schema WG willing to offer his/his WG's opinion on
> this
> > issue?
> >
> > Jean-Jacques.